STEPHEN Flynn has accused Labour of misleading the public after the Chancellor announced a swathe of cuts despite repeatedly denying they would not oversee public service cuts during the election campaign.
On Monday, Rachel Reeves said she had identified £22 billion worth of overspending and would therefore be scrapping Winter Fuel Payments for those not in receipt of benefits as well as reviewing “£1bn of unfunded transport projects”.
During the election campaign, Reeves said she did not “want to make any cuts to public spending” and promised there would be no return to austerity.
Indeed, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar echoed her sentiments, saying he did not accept there would be cuts from a Labour government after being pressed on Tory spending commitments during the election campaign.
READ MORE: An economist reacts to Rachel Reeves speech: 'Utterly unjustifiable'
Clashing with John Swinney during a live TV debate, he said: “Read my lips: No austerity under a Labour government".
Yet Flynn has said that Reeves’ announcement shows that Labour have broken their promise to voters.
“Throughout the election, the SNP repeatedly warned the Labour Party's damaging decision to copy Tory fiscal rules and spending plans would mean around £18billion of cuts or tax rises,” he said.
“Labour flatly denied this and promised there would be no cuts – but now they have been forced to admit it was true and the cuts will be even deeper than expected.
"The Labour Party misled the public and has broken its promise to voters.
“The cuts announced today are a political choice that will damage public services and economic growth – and, more worryingly, it's now clear the Labour government will continue to cut and squeeze the budgets of public services, at a time when they desperately need investment.”
Reeves also appeared to lay blame at the previous government’s handling of the asylum system, which she said would cost more than £6.4bn this year alone.
First Minister John Swinney also condemned the cuts and feared what they would mean for Scotland's own budget.
“The Chancellor has painted an appalling picture of the financial future facing the UK," he said.
“By echoing the previous government’s fiscal rules, they are trapped into delivering massive spending cuts.
The Chancellor’s statement today is deeply concerning but not at all surprising. I warned throughout the election of the pressures in the public finances. (1/2)
— John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) July 29, 2024
“We warned this was the reality and today has seen that truth validated.
"Now, if they do not change course, the reality of the UK’s finances will inevitably affect the funding available to us here in Scotland.
"Their decisions today mean tough decisions ahead for Scotland.
“What is particularly worrying is that the Chancellor announced she is not fully funding the public sector pay deals she has accepted.
"Instead, cuts are being demanded across most of Whitehall. That means that we will not receive full Barnett consequentials from these pay deals.
“The Scottish Government will prioritise action to tackle child poverty, grasp the opportunities of net zero and grow the economy by investing in public services and infrastructure.
"And, while we will work with the UK where we can, we will continue to argue they must drop the damaging cuts and set new spending rules that support investment.”
Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer (below) also condemned the announcement, saying it represented a continuation of the punitive environment typical of Tory governments.
“Labour promised that if they were elected the era of Tory cuts would be over, but they are already using the George Osborne playbook to justify even more of the same Conservative policies that have caused so much pain," he said.
“The cuts that the Chancellor announced today were entirely avoidable.
"They were a choice, just as they were when the Tories spent 14 years doing the same thing.
"Rachel Reeves made clear that vulnerable people will pay the price for Labour’s refusal to tax the super-rich, without offering so much as a word of empathy for the human cost.
"We can’t cut our way out of a Westminster-imposed crisis. The last decade and a half has proven that beyond any doubt."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel