Only in a democracy touched by madness would a party thrive by prizing appearance over outcomes... welcome to Scotland

Published: 21:02, 30 July 2026 | Updated: 21:18, 30 July 2026 Imagine for a moment that every penny is a prisoner in your housekeeping budget. It may not be hard to do. It may be your reality. It is certainly the reality for many a government, including our Scottish one which explicitly states that its finances are under such extreme pressure that it lacks the necessary funds to achieve its public goals. Oodles of projects languish on its wish list – rail links for major airports, for example, roads upgrades, hospitals – but the problem is cash. It doesn’t have enough of it. As citizens with budgets of our own and, in many of our cases, a raft of aspirations beyond our current financial reach, we get the concept.  The other thing we know is we come no closer to fulfilling these aspirations by embarking on a course of reducing our income.  You probably feel this is so obvious that it need not be stated at all. Only the very stupid, surely, would fail to realise that less cash means less spending power. Increasing the tax rate does not necessarily increase the tax take... Funnily enough, stupidity was one of the possible explanations given this week to help us understand why the SNP imposed a 48p tax rate for the nation’s highest earners despite their own tax experts’ fears it would result in a reduction in tax income rather than an increase. Other possible explanations were suggested too. We will look at them all. But first we should look at the fact that when, in 2023, the then finance secretary Shona Robison announced the new top rate of 48p for those earning more than £125,140, there was no prior consultation with her government’s newly launched Tax Advisory Group. ‘We were never asked,’ says former member Dan Neidle. Worryingly, he wasn’t surprised in the slightest. He was part of a team of economists, academics and business leaders specifically appointed by the SNP to harness their shared wisdom on tax matters – and yet Ms Robison did not trouble herself with canvassing their view on hammering the high earners even more. Shona Robison, who announced the rate increase as Finance Secretary Why ever not, one must wonder. I have two theories. Ms Robison knew more about tax than all these people. She didn’t need their tuppence worth. Alternatively, Ms Robison knew little about tax but enough to know that the experts would warn her against the increase. She chose to remain in ignorance of her folly. You choose your favourite. Either way, her decision is estimated to have cost the public purse between £15million and £30million through easily foreseen behavioural changes in this highest earning group. They include diverting more income into pensions, entering salary sacrifice schemes, cutting work hours – even leaving the country. Mr Neidle has a variety of theories as to why the SNP might have blundered ahead with its 48p rate despite the clear risk the move would reduce tax income. ‘Theory one, they’re stupid,’ he posits. ‘They didn’t understand it.’ It is an attractive argument. The paucity of intellect on the SNP benches hits me in the gut on a weekly basis. I know some incredibly bright Nationalists. None of them are MSPs. ‘Theory number two, they’re gamblers,’ suggests Mr Neidle. ‘They saw there was a risk, but decided to take it in the knowledge of that risk.’ Dan Neidle, the founder of Tax Policy Associates I do not buy theory number two unless it is married to theory number one. No gambler with any sense fails to assess risk. Intelligent gamblers turn risk assessment into a science. This shower didn’t even bother to consult the experts on the risk. ‘Theory number three, they’re incredibly cynical politicians who couldn’t care about whether it brings in or loses money, but it’ll do as a nice piece of political positioning.’ Adopters of Mr Neidle’s third theory would be making quite an accusation. They would be saying the SNP is a machiavellian beast which would willingly compromise the public purse for the opportunity to posture about squeezing the rich. They would be saying that it puts itself before Scotland, considers retention of power its primary imperative – more important than the people it purports to serve. Effectively, they would be painting the SNP as manipulative swines taking full advantage of the fact that a core section of their voters despises the wealthy by pandering to their resentment even if it pulls Scotland further into the financial mire. Could anyone really believe our party of government is capable of sinking so low? I believe it in a heartbeat. But I also believe theory number four needs an airing. ‘They’re infected by a disease you often see on the Left,’ suggests Mr Neidle, ‘which is, “this thing seems progressive and good, we should do this thing”.’ Here we move into the realms of virtue signalling. The policy has the appearance of being progressive and good, and therefore it must be right. Even if it is wrong. I confess I struggle to follow the logic too, because it is an affront to logic. In any democracy founded on sanity, governments gathering in and spending taxpayers’ money concern themselves not with the first-glance look of a policy but with the projected outcome of it. If the outcome is the wrong one, then the look is neither here nor there. Only in a democracy touched by madness would a party thrive by elevating appearance over outcome. A sane democracy would rumble them and boot them out. Welcome to Scotland, a land which has contrived to keep the SNP in power through almost two decades of stupidity, cynicism and virtue signalling which harms us and our economy. We’re mad here. Perhaps Mr Neidle was too polite to go there, but I think he missed a theory. Theory number five: hatred. It is not just a rump of bottom-feeders among their core support who loathe the well-off, the wealth-creators. It’s SNP ministers too. They cannot bear tall poppies in their garden of mediocrity. For a start, many of these poppies eschew Nationalism. They are economically literate enough to grasp the financial self-harm independence would bring. They are brighter than the politicians and aghast at the SNP’s ineptitude when it comes to public money. They are private sector success stories who create jobs and breathe life into communities. A few even attempt to breathe life into the Scottish Government’s economic thinking, to alert them to fiscal realities such as the fact that it’s the tax take that matters, not the tax rate. The Scottish tycoon and philanthropist Sir Tom Hunter has been telling the SNP this until he is blue in the face. He is too rich to be listened to, understands too much about economics, used his business acumen to do too well for himself. Yes, the last thing the SNP needs is people like Sir Tom or Dan Neidle sticking their oar in when they have already decided on the demographic they’re out to impress. You may wonder what ever became of the Tax Advisory Group to which Mr Neidle belonged. Axed. Surplus to SNP requirements.