Transport funding in Scotland

[Mrwerdna1]

Moderator Note - split from:

ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement

ScotRail Trains Limited (SRT) Market Engagement Notice SRT is launching a market engagement exercise in relation to its proposed procurement for the replacement of some of its aging Diesel and Electric Multiple Units with a new fleet of Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) and Battery Electric...

www.railforums.co.uk

Transport funding in Scotland seems to be severly constrained at the moment. First the electrification plan was put on hold then massively downscaled, then the bus fund was frozen (no update on when that may resume) and now this. Why? This is bordering on gross-negligence by the SNP government. I'm sorry but I understand finances may generally be strained (thanks, Tories), but in defence of the UK Labour government, the forecast block grant settlements see an increase to the Scottish budget in real terms (not just on paper). So where is the SNP squandering this money and why are they choosing to starve public transport from vital funding?

I may be in favour of indyref2 in spirit, but the SNP's handling of transport policy over the last two decades has been disastrous. It all started with the cancellation of the Edinburgh rail link and just got progressively worse from there. Glasgow is the only urban area set to receive bus reregulation of any kind and earliest by 2030 (that is if there isn't another consultation on a consultation of the consulation consulting about the proposed consultation). For Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness it's tough luck, just put up with the dismal service you've got. Oh, but Aberdeen may get a BRT line, but again earliest by the 2030s. Totally out of step with public opinion which all over Scotland overwhelmingly supports either bus franchising or, more fervently, the creation of municipal bus companies. But the public's will is largely ignored, it seems. The only properly good thing the government did recently on transport was reintroduce lower fares for Scotrail.

Taking Scotrail into national ownership was good too, but that would also have happened under a devolved Labour government, so the SNP don't get any credit for that from me.

 

[Southsider]

Transport funding in Scotland seems to be severly constrained at the moment. First the electrification plan was put on hold then massively downscaled, then the bus fund was frozen (no update on when that may resume) and now this. Why? This is bordering on gross-negligence by the SNP government. I'm sorry but I understand finances may generally be strained (thanks, Tories), but in defence of the UK Labour government, the forecast block grant settlements see an increase to the Scottish budget in real terms (not just on paper). So where is the SNP squandering this money and why are they choosing to starve public transport from vital funding?

I may be in favour of indyref2 in spirit, but the SNP's handling of transport policy over the last two decades has been disastrous. It all started with the cancellation of the Edinburgh rail link and just got progressively worse from there. Glasgow is the only urban area set to receive bus reregulation of any kind and earliest by 2030 (that is if there isn't another consultation on a consultation of the consulation consulting about the proposed consultation). For Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness it's tough luck, just put up with the dismal service you've got. Oh, but Aberdeen may get a BRT line, but again earliest by the 2030s. Totally out of step with public opinion which all over Scotland overwhelmingly supports either bus franchising or, more fervently, the creation of municipal bus companies. But the public's will is largely ignored, it seems. The only properly good thing the government did recently on transport was reintroduce lower fares for Scotrail.

Taking Scotrail into national ownership was good too, but that would also have happened under a devolved Labour government, so the SNP don't get any credit for that from me.

I don’t know where the blame lies; Transport Scotland, Scottish Government or somewhere else but there does seem to have been some major examples of dropping the ball. Over and above the issues building the Cal Mac ferries, they are now having to operate from Troon as Ardrossan has not been upgraded to accept them and now insufficient trains to use a newly electrified line. Whoever is at fault, it adds up to poor use of public funds.

 

[David M]

in defence of the UK Labour government, the forecast block grant settlements see an increase to the Scottish budget in real terms (not just on paper)

You can put whatever you like in bold but it doesn't make it true.
Below from the absolutely not SNP friendly Fraser of Allander Institute:

"In the very short-term, there is a small amount of additional funding (£28m) for the Scottish Government in 2025-26 due to a small increase in departmental spending at UK Government level.
"Towards the end of the forecast, however, the picture is significantly more challenging in terms of what it means for Holyrood’s finances.
"The cuts in departmental budgets announced by the UK Government – even after accounting for some consequentials from employment support programmes and DWP delivery of welfare reforms – mean significant reductions in funding for the Scottish Government relative to what was previously included in the forecasts.
"Of particular significance are the £200m and £435m cuts in implied funding for the Scottish budget in 2028-29 and 2029-30.
"The current forecast points to the PIP [Personal Independence Payment] reforms reducing the block grant adjustment for social security devolution by increasing amounts, from £177m in 2027-28 to £455m in 2029-30."
"Put together, and in the absence of any other changes, the Scottish budget would be around £900m worse-off on the current side in 2029-30 than previously projected. On the other hand, some additional capital spending on areas which are devolved in Scotland – so aside from the defence spending increases – are expected to raise the Scottish Government’s capital budget by nearly £250m by 2029-30 relative to current plans."

See https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,...-statement-challenging-for-scotlands-finances

 

[David M]

I don’t know where the blame lies; Transport Scotland, Scottish Government or somewhere else but there does seem to have been some major examples of dropping the ball. Over and above the issues building the Cal Mac ferries, they are now having to operate from Troon as Ardrossan has not been upgraded to accept them and now insufficient trains to use a newly electrified line. Whoever is at fault, it adds up to poor use of public funds.

Ardrossan is owned and operated by Peel Ports - why should the Scottish Government pay for them to upgrade a port they have deliberately neglected over time? Peel Group, of which peel Ports are a part have a poor reputation throughout the UK.
Having insufficent emus to operate the East Kilbride line is unforgiveable, i will grant you that.

 

[clc]

You can put whatever you like in bold but it doesn't make it true.
Below from the absolutely not SNP friendly Fraser of Allander Institute:

In the very short-term, there is a small amount of additional funding (£28m) for the Scottish Government in 2025-26 due to a small increase in departmental spending at UK Government level.
"Towards the end of the forecast, however, the picture is significantly more challenging in terms of what it means for Holyrood’s finances.
"The cuts in departmental budgets announced by the UK Government – even after accounting for some consequentials from employment support programmes and DWP delivery of welfare reforms – mean significant reductions in funding for the Scottish Government relative to what was previously included in the forecasts.
"Of particular significance are the £200m and £435m cuts in implied funding for the Scottish budget in 2028-29 and 2029-30.
"The current forecast points to the PIP [Personal Independence Payment] reforms reducing the block grant adjustment for social security devolution by increasing amounts, from £177m in 2027-28 to £455m in 2029-30."
"Put together, and in the absence of any other changes, the Scottish budget would be around £900m worse-off on the current side in 2029-30 than previously projected. On the other hand, some additional capital spending on areas which are devolved in Scotland – so aside from the defence spending increases – are expected to raise the Scottish Government’s capital budget by nearly £250m by 2029-30 relative to current plans."

I always find the FAI is a good source if you want objective analysis of the numbers which cuts through the political spin. They’ve pointed out that the Scottish Government’s capital budget will face real terms cuts in the latter half of the spending review period as can be seen from the treasury’s figures:-

Table 1: Scottish Government Block Grant, £ billion​

	2025-26	2026-27	2027-28	2028-29	2029-30
Block Grant	48.1	49.8	50.8	52.1
Resource	41.5	42.7	43.8	45.0
Capital	6.5	7.1	7.0	7.1	7.1

Source: HM Treasury

Number soup on SR day from all sides | FAI

One of the roles we play on a day with big fiscal announcements is to explain all the numbers flying…

fraserofallander.org

 

[Southsider]

Ardrossan is owned and operated by Peel Ports - why should the Scottish Government pay for them to upgrade a port they have deliberately neglected over time? Peel Group, of which peel Ports are a part have a poor reputation throughout the UK.
Having insufficent emus to operate the East Kilbride line is unforgiveable, i will grant you that.

Not saying they should but it was recognised at the outset that upgrades were required but looks like no one did anything about it.

 

[Falcon1200]

Ardrossan is owned and operated by Peel Ports - why should the Scottish Government pay for them to upgrade a port they have deliberately neglected over time?

Plenty to be said about the ferry fiasco, but why order ships too large to use a port over which you have no power?

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Ok, I trust the FAI figures, so it appears I was wrong, quite considerably and embarrassingly so. I still think adequate transport funding, even amid strained finances, has not been made a priority by successive devolved governments, which is a mistake. But I should not have brought a misinformed rant into this otherwise apolitical thread and for that, and getting my facts wrong, I apologise. Frustrating to read about all the constant cutbacks though, I must admit. Still, with the solid 318s and 320s merely sticking around for a week bit longer, I suppose things could be worse.

 

[David M]

Ok, I trust the FAI figures, so it appears I was wrong, quite considerably and embarrassingly so. I still think adequate transport funding, even amid strained finances, has not been made a priority by successive devolved governments, which is a mistake. But I should not have brought a misinformed rant into this otherwise apolitical thread and for that, and getting my facts wrong, I apologise. Frustrating to read about all the constant cutbacks though, I must admit. Still, with the solid 318s and 320s merely sticking around for a week bit longer, I suppose things could be worse.

Fair play to you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

Plenty to be said about the ferry fiasco, but why order ships too large to use a port over which you have no power?

The size of the ferries was always known and an agreement was reached nearly a decade ago to redevelop the port.
The Ardrossan Harbour Project was given the green light in 2017 and the final design signed off in 2018. Disagreements arose in 2022 over the cost of upgrading the harbour and how the costs would be split between the three partners, Peel Ports, North Ayrshire Council, and The Scottish Government.
It's very easy to blame the Scottish Government but the delays were, and are, at the hands of Peel Ports who would dearly love to force to have the harbour nationalised at, presumably, great financial benefit to themselves.

 

[Charged up]

Not saying they should but it was recognised at the outset that upgrades were required but looks like no one did anything about it.

Transport Scotland rail projects team once again chose the wrong option and as a result passengers along the EK line will need to put up with, totally unsuitable, 40 yr old diesels for another 5 years now. The rolling stock strategy plan to replace the c156, c318, c320 fleets by 2025/26 and have sufficient electric trains for East Kilbride and Barrhead has been ready to go since early 2020 but the obsession to install wires on the EK branch has proved once again to be another bad decision by the rail projects team in TS.

The myth that electrification projects can be delivered for 1m per stk has been blown out the water, again, and although it will be portrayed as "on time and budget" the work to install wires should have instead been focussed on introducing battery fleets on EK line by 2024/25. If this had been started in 2020 these 4 and 5-car electric trains could have been running now to/from E. Kilbride, using the new wires to Busby Junction, and also have sufficient range to potentially reach Kilmarnock and Girvan [via Barrasie /Troon].

Fully testing the new fleet in Strathclyde would then have enabled the same trains in turn to be rolled out onto Edinburgh/ Borders and Fife circle routes freeing up C158s to fully release the c156s across the west of Scotland. Further BEMUs could then be ordered for 2027 to allow some more of the c158s, mostly on the east coast, to be replaced ahead of the next major hurdle of HST fleet replacement around 2028/29.

As we have seen many times before the TS rail directorate has backed the wrong horse and the extra cost will impact and reduce many future project options. Limping on with old unreliable diesels will also make the railway less attractive to use when the superb station improvements on the EK route should be a game changer for greater usage.

 

[clc]

Transport Scotland rail projects team once again chose the wrong option and as a result passengers along the EK line will need to put up with, totally unsuitable, 40 yr old diesels for another 5 years now.

Ayr still hasn’t regained a 4tph service so there must be spare class 380s which could operate on the Ek line.

 

[Brubulus]

Ayr still hasn’t regained a 4tph service so there must be spare class 380s which could operate on the Ek line.

Don't forget Barrhead, though I also suspect there are less peak extras across the network and some 6 car peak services aren't at crush loading. While it's not a perfect situation, there is no excuse for not providing an EMU service on EK.

 

[sannox]

For me Scotland has centralised too much and lost local adaptability and knowledge. I think this matters a lot in transport issues.

 

[hexagon789]

Ayr still hasn’t regained a 4tph service so there must be spare class 380s which could operate on the Ek line.

I don't see any except Sundays tbh.

Diagram totals
380/0: Mon-Wed 21, Thu-Sat 20, Sun 14
380/1: Mon-Sat 14, Sun 11

There are 22 380/0 and 16 380/1

 

[HighlandStorm]

Transport Scotland rail projects team once again chose the wrong option and as a result passengers along the EK line will need to put up with, totally unsuitable, 40 yr old diesels for another 5 years now.

Disagree because if the EK project didn’t go ahead, any hope of rolling electrification and keeping the skill sets, equipment and teams together would have been lost. It was a shovel ready project that had a team ready with their shovels.

Not proceeding would have set the whole electrification process back substantially with increased costs that boom and bust has caused previously. The infrastructure will out last the next generation of trains, after the ones currently being sought. Get the wires up and keep it rolling forward. It would be good if extra electric stock could be brought on short to medium term basis, but ultimately a 156 can run under the wires, a 380 or 385 isn’t going far without them!

 

[Cloud Strife]

So where is the SNP squandering this money and why are they choosing to starve public transport from vital funding?

The money just isn't there. Even if you ignore the situation with the ferries, NHS Scotland is sucking up a huge amount of cash. Health and social care take up nearly 40% of the budget alone, and it's not a secret that Scotland has a rather unhealthy population that needs a lot of expensive and long term care.

There's also a lot of money transferred to the councils as the SNP have tried to keep council tax down, and the SNP are also really struggling with capital expenditure for essential infrastructure sucking up money. Stuff like finally replacing Barlinnie with HMP Glasgow has cost a bomb, and public sector pay is also really starting to bite hard.

It's very easy to blame the Scottish Government but the delays were, and are, at the hands of Peel Ports who would dearly love to force to have the harbour nationalised at, presumably, great financial benefit to themselves.

Peel essentially want to get the Scottish Government to buy out the port at huge expense, while walking away with huge profits from selling off the rest of the site. The Scottish Government called their bluff after ABP came forward to offer Troon for peanuts, as they failed miserably to attract a commercial operator there after P&O left, and so Peel are now in the situation that CalMac may completely abandon the port and there's not much they can do about it. It's a Mexican standoff of sorts, but the Scottish Government quite rightfully refuse to be held hostage by Peel in this case.

It's worth looking at this from Hansard: https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/12046/clydeport-multimillionaires which explains how this sorry state of affairs came to be. The lifeline ports should never have been privatised, and the general privatisation of Clydeport (or the Clyde Port Authority as it was) was a complete scandal.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Such a depressing state of affairs. I don’t see how this improves without a new income stream for Scottish public spending. This is usually where pro-independence or devo-max voices call for greater fiscal powers and borrowing capacity —but realistically, I don’t see much room for meaningful spending increases in the medium term. Cutting the NHS budget is a political no-go, especially with public confidence in quality of care falling, regardless of spending.

So the only real options seem to be raising taxes or borrowing more. Scotland might have the political will, but the current UK framework doesn’t permit it. And even the most optimistic independence supporter would have to admit that, setting politics aside, the short-to-medium term would likely mean reduced government spending power and a considerable shock to the Scottish economy. Rejoining the single market and customs union might help long-term, but in the near future, things would look worse—especially with trade friction at the English border likely outweighing EU membership benefits for a while.

So yes, public spending may well fall in real terms. In that case, I could maybe support redirecting some welfare spending toward transport and education—something akin to the Swiss model, with high investment in core public services but limited welfare. But unlike in Switzerland, Thatcherism left those services on their knees here. Not to mention they have much more money to spend in the first place. So ideally, I wouldn’t cut anything. And there’s no political appetite for it anyway—plus welfare isn’t devolved, and if it were, the Scottish government would likely want to spend more, not less.

 

[oldman]

And there’s no political appetite for it anyway—plus welfare isn’t devolved, and if it were, the Scottish government would likely want to spend more, not less.

A lot of welfare spending is devolved including Personal Independence Payments (called Adult Disability Payment) though a big exception is universal credit. Scottish ministers do indeed want to spend more. There is a bit of a black hole.

As the BBC says:

This means social security accounts for an increasingly large share of the Scottish government's budget.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission says spending on it was £6.1bn in 2024-25.

It forecasts that this will rise to £7.7bn next year and pass £9bn by 2029-30.

 

[Cloud Strife]

This is usually where pro-independence or devo-max voices call for greater fiscal powers and borrowing capacity —but realistically, I don’t see much room for meaningful spending increases in the medium term.

It really is exposing the failure to devolve taxation properly. There's really no reason why Scotland has to keep the same taxation system as England, not least because there's such a difference in political mentality that it's obvious that the English approach doesn't work in Scotland and vice-versa.

If I were the UK government, I'd fully devolve taxation and spending, with the exception of requiring a certain contribution to the UK state for things that just cannot be devolved, such as defence. I've done some rough calculations, and I've come up with a figure of around £15 billion that Scotland would have to pay to 'maintain' the UK. From there, it should be perfectly possible for Scotland to maintain her own systems. Yes, it would probably involve more taxation, but the Nordic-style taxation/social welfare system is much more acceptable in Scotland than in England.

There's absolutely no reason why Scotland can't have her own version of HMRC and her own benefits system, which would allow the Scottish Government to loan money for big ticket items.

 

[Brubulus]

It really is exposing the failure to devolve taxation properly. There's really no reason why Scotland has to keep the same taxation system as England, not least because there's such a difference in political mentality that it's obvious that the English approach doesn't work in Scotland and vice-versa.

If I were the UK government, I'd fully devolve taxation and spending, with the exception of requiring a certain contribution to the UK state for things that just cannot be devolved, such as defence. I've done some rough calculations, and I've come up with a figure of around £15 billion that Scotland would have to pay to 'maintain' the UK. From there, it should be perfectly possible for Scotland to maintain her own systems. Yes, it would probably involve more taxation, but the Nordic-style taxation/social welfare system is much more acceptable in Scotland than in England.

There's absolutely no reason why Scotland can't have her own version of HMRC and her own benefits system, which would allow the Scottish Government to loan money for big ticket items.

Reasonable, but would this mean that net fiscal transfers to Scotland would end. Scotland plays a ruse of making people think their slightly higher tax rates actually fund the differences in spending between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Attitudes will change if that assumption is blown out the water.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

No more net fiscal transfers would create a serious funding gap in the short-to-medium term. Tax rises could help, but without enhanced borrowing powers, the model won’t hold. Crucially, there’s precedent for expanded regional borrowing powers—see Québec (Canada), Bavaria (Germany), Swiss cantons, the Basque Country, and Catalonia (Spain).

That’s why full fiscal devolution, including borrowing, should be the next step short of independence. With a smart framework, UK lawmakers could gradually disentangle Scottish and UK economic policy. The Scottish government could borrow—but at less favourable rates than Westminster. If they overspend, it would hit their own credit rating, not the UK’s. That dynamic already exists elsewhere, and it works. It would also shift political accountability: Holyrood would gain freedom, but also responsibility.

Scottish Labour and the Scottish Tories ought to support this. The block grant is unpopular and seen as undemocratic. It lets the SNP deflect blame while Westminster takes the flak, even when Holyrood underperforms. And while Scottish Labour and the Tories like to claim autonomy, voters still view them through a Westminster lens.

To be fair to the SNP, Scotland’s economic options are indeed heavily constrained by UK fiscal policy. Fiscal devolution would bring real power—but also real risk. Policy decisions would have faster, more visible consequences. That, in my view, is a good thing. Even if there may be some early misuse, Holyrood would finally have skin in the game.

I do support independence for more fundamental reasons of identity, sovereignty, nationhood etc. —but it’s also true that stronger devolution has weakened independence movements elsewhere. In Québec and the Basque Country, it reduced the space for victim politics and encouraged competent governance. In many ways, devolution delivered the material benefits independence campaigns had promised.

Of course, fiscal devolution wouldn’t bring us EU membership. But if I were a Scottish lawmaker, I’d gradually push for more foreign policy leeway—aligning with EU standards, joining certain programs, committees or councils as an observer state, and keeping the door open to a future in the single market.

In short, Scotland should take inspiration from the Faroe Islands: independence as a long-term goal, built steadily through devo-max and smart policy making — not grievance politics like we’ve seen in some parts of the independence movement in Catalonia or Greenland, amongst others.

I will say though that even with limited funding available, the Scottish government could achieve a lot in the next 10 years if it wanted to. Full nationwide integration of transport (ticketing, time-tabling, branding) is realistic and not overly expensive, if service levels are kept constant or made more efficient (i.e. consolidate 3 low-frequency, low ridership bus lines into 1 high-frequency line, just to name an example). Likewise, programs such as bus priority measures, if implemented intelligently, end up paying for themselves. Yet it's those exact things, the ticket integration program and bus priority measures as part of the bus fund in particular that are currently delayed or frozen due to "strained" budgets, if I am not misinformed. That is, even given any lack of funding, not good governance.

 

[sannox]

Yet it's those exact things, the ticket integration program and bus priority measures as part of the bus fund in particular that are currently delayed or frozen due to "strained" budgets, if I am not misinformed. That is, even given any lack of funding, not good governance.

Budgets are one thing, lack of staff that are able to do these things another. In the end we end up often on schemes like that as saying who is responsible for driving things forward and we find that we don't have bodies capable of doing things like this. SPT is a shadow of it's former organisation in aiding much of this in the West.

 

[clc]

Don't forget Barrhead, though I also suspect there are less peak extras across the network and some 6 car peak services aren't at crush loading. While it's not a perfect situation, there is no excuse for not providing an EMU service on EK.

I don't see any except Sundays tbh.

Diagram totals
380/0: Mon-Wed 21, Thu-Sat 20, Sun 14
380/1: Mon-Sat 14, Sun 11

There are 22 380/0 and 16 380/1

Ayr and Gourock both lost 2tph. Wemyss Bay gained 1tph and Barrhead now has 1 emu per hour. Perhaps some of the spare units which were reallocated to provide longer trains on other services could be reallocated to EK. I can’t believe that the SG would knowingly put itself in the position of having to run diesels on a newly electrified branch on which over £100 million has been invested, especially in an election year. After the ferries fiasco they’ll be anxious to avoid more negative headlines.