Why Edinburgh council urgently needs a new plan – John McLellan

Edinburgh City Council was already facing a hole in its budget before the coronavirus outbreak began, writes John McLellan.

Tough decisions will need to be made at the City Chambers (Picture: Neil Hanna)

Some very tough choices indeed will need to be made in the very near future as the city council faces up to the depth of the coronavirus financial crisis and the £56m hole it has left in its budget.

Even before the crisis, the problems facing the council were writ large as the SNP in government continued to starve local authorities of cash and then drip feed relatively small amounts back through one-off grants, which then received disproportionate amounts of gratitude.

The direct impact of lockdown is massive, some £86m lost through the collapse of rents, rates and revenues, but so far there is only an expectation of around £18m of emergency relief. The rest will need to be found from reserves and savings, but the effect of other choices is also taking its toll and the report to today’s policy & sustainability committee doesn’t pull its punches.

“Most residual pressures have arisen from non-delivery of previously agreed savings and efficiencies,” it says. In other words, even without the crisis the council administration was not delivering what was needed to balance the books.

“In this context, the requirement for management actions to be delivered, or substituted, is critical and a refresh of implementation plans is urgently needed,” it adds. Put another way, the assumptions, promises and policies which have guided the SNP-Labour administration thus far are irrelevant and a new plan is urgently needed.

Another report with a plan of action is to be produced by June 25. It will not make for comfortable reading.

The downside of a Universal Basic Income

An interesting survey has been conducted by Edinburgh-based pollster Mark Diffley in which 1000 people were asked if they supported a Universal Basic Income in which “all individual adults in Scotland would receive a regular income to cover basic needs, paid regardless of their working status and income from other sources.” Not surprisingly 67 per cent said yes.

Had 1000 tax-payers been asked “Are you prepared to pay over 40 per cent of your income in tax to support UBI?” which is what it would mean if it was to match the basic pension, I suspect the answer might be different.