Submitted by Bill Fernie
9th October 2026
The Scottish Government has promised a smaller public-sector workforce and substantial savings. But as another difficult Budget approaches, taxpayers deserve to know whether ministers will tackle the cost of government itself or leave local services to shoulder much of the burden.
When the Scottish Government presents its Budget on 3 December, much of the attention will inevitably focus on the NHS, local councils and the services people use every day.
Will hospitals have enough money? Will councils be able to maintain roads, schools and social care? Will further savings mean fewer staff, longer waits or reduced services?
These are important questions. But there is another question that deserves equal attention.
What is the Scottish Government doing to reduce the cost of its own administration and the wider network of public bodies it controls?
If money is tight, it seems reasonable to expect ministers to examine their own departments, management structures, consultants, administrative costs and staffing levels just as closely as they expect councils and health boards to examine theirs.
There are already commitments to reduce the size of the public-sector workforce and make government more efficient. The question is whether these changes will deliver enough savings to make a meaningful difference to the pressure on frontline services.
The public sector has grown over the years
Scotland's devolved public sector employs hundreds of thousands of people.
The NHS and local government account for the largest numbers, but the wider public sector also includes the Scottish Government's civil service, colleges, universities and various public bodies.
Official figures put total devolved public-sector employment at approximately 551,500 in December 2025. That was around 2,500 higher than a year earlier, with NHS employment accounting for much of the increase.
The figure needs to be treated carefully. Public-sector employment has grown for several reasons, including additional responsibilities, increased demand for services and changes in the way public services are organised. A larger workforce does not automatically mean waste.
Nevertheless, the longer-term growth raises a legitimate question about whether every expansion has been necessary and whether the present structure offers the best value for taxpayers.
For example, when new policies are introduced, they can bring new administrative teams, reporting requirements, management arrangements and systems. Over time, these can accumulate. Some may be essential, but others may overlap with work already being carried out elsewhere.
The challenge is to identify which activities genuinely improve services and which simply add to the cost of running the system.
The Government has promised to become smaller
This is not merely a question being raised by critics. The Scottish Government has already set out plans to reduce the size of its civil service and change how it operates.
Its civil service change plan for 2026 to 2031 includes tighter recruitment controls, a leaner management structure, greater use of shared corporate services and more automation of administrative work.
The Government has also identified opportunities to reduce its property estate. It says 14 buildings have closed since 2023.
These measures could deliver savings, although the important test is how much money they actually release and whether those savings continue in future years.
Reducing office space, for example, may cut rent and running costs. Shared administrative services may eliminate duplication. Better technology may allow some routine tasks to be completed more quickly.
But the Government must also be clear about the limits. Technology requires investment, shared services need to be managed, and staff cannot simply be removed from activities that remain necessary.
The aim should be to reduce unnecessary costs while preserving the skills and capacity needed to run public services properly.
The workforce target will be difficult to meet
The Scottish Government has set a target to reduce the devolved public-sector workforce by an average of 0.5% a year between 2025/26 and 2029/30.
That is a target for the wider devolved public sector, not a requirement for every department, council or health board to cut exactly the same proportion of its workforce.
However, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned that public-sector employment increased during the first year of the plan. Greater reductions will therefore be required in subsequent years if the overall target is to be achieved.
The Government's own civil service change programme includes tighter recruitment, natural turnover and possible voluntary exit arrangements. It is also looking at management structures and the use of technology.
There has been no blanket announcement that compulsory redundancies will be imposed across the civil service.
But the direction of travel is clear. The Government wants a smaller organisation, and that will require decisions about which posts are retained, which are not replaced and which activities can be carried out differently.
The public should be told how progress is being measured. A target is useful, but taxpayers need to know whether staff numbers are actually falling, which parts of government are contributing and how much money is being saved.
Why should councils and the NHS carry the burden?
The argument becomes more pressing when we consider the financial position facing other public services.
NHS boards are expected to make substantial recurring savings, while councils face rising costs, increasing demand and difficult choices over local services.
These organisations are under pressure to reduce expenditure without undermining the services for which they are responsible.
For councils, that can mean difficult decisions about road maintenance, libraries, leisure facilities, social care and staffing. For the NHS, it can mean tighter recruitment, changes to service delivery and pressure to reduce waiting lists while spending less.
Some savings may be achievable through better organisation. Others may have direct consequences for the public.
It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the same determination is being applied to the cost of central government.
Could management layers be reduced? Could separate bodies share more administrative functions? Are there programmes that no longer justify their cost? Are consultants being used where permanent staff or existing expertise could do the work? Are reporting systems unnecessarily complicated?
These questions do not imply that every administrative job is wasteful. Good administration is essential to effective government. But the burden of demonstrating value should apply throughout the public sector, not just to the services most visible to taxpayers.
The £1 billion question
The Scottish Government's public service reform programme has identified an ambition to reduce annualised corporate costs across government and public bodies by £1 billion, or around 20% of the relevant operating and corporate costs.
That is a substantial ambition, but it needs careful interpretation.
It is not a promise to remove £1 billion from the Scottish Government's total budget and hand all of it to councils or the NHS. The figure relates to identified corporate and operating costs across the programme, and the actual savings must be demonstrated.
There is also a difference between announcing a target, identifying possible savings and delivering money that can be used elsewhere.
A saving that depends on a new system costing millions of pounds to introduce may take time to materialise. A one-off reduction in expenditure does not necessarily help with a recurring annual budget gap. And moving work from one public body to another does not save money if the overall cost remains the same.
The Government should therefore publish clear information showing how much has been saved, how much has been spent to achieve those savings and whether the benefits are recurring.
Without that evidence, it is difficult for taxpayers to judge whether reform is delivering the promised results.
Should some departments face greater reductions than others?
A difficult Budget inevitably involves choices about priorities.
Health and social care account for a substantial share of Scotland's spending, and their share is projected to increase over the current spending review period. That reflects the political priority attached to these services, but it also places pressure on other parts of the budget.
Not every department can expect its funding to rise at the same rate.
Some programmes may need to be reduced, delayed or stopped. Others may be able to operate with fewer staff or through shared services. Ministers may also need to reconsider whether every existing initiative remains as important as it was when first introduced.
The public deserves an explanation of these choices.
If ministers decide that a particular service must be protected, they should explain what that means for other budgets. If a programme is to continue despite financial pressure, they should be able to explain why its benefits justify the cost.
The same scrutiny should apply to the Scottish Government's own departments and agencies.
There is no reason why a government office should be exempt from questions about productivity, staffing and value for money simply because it is part of the central administration.
What does this mean for Caithness?
For people in Caithness and Sutherland, the issue is not simply the number of civil servants working in Edinburgh or Glasgow. It is whether the overall spending system gives local services enough resources to meet local needs.
Highland Council and NHS Highland have to operate across a large geographical area. The cost and practicality of providing services in remote communities can be very different from those in densely populated parts of Scotland.
A saving that appears sensible in a central spreadsheet may have unintended consequences if it means fewer services locally, longer journeys for patients or additional pressure on families.
This is why the distribution of savings matters as much as the headline total.
If the Scottish Government can reduce duplication and corporate costs across its own departments and public bodies, that could help ease pressure elsewhere. But if those savings prove smaller than expected, councils and health boards may still face difficult decisions.
Residents should not assume that money saved centrally will automatically reach Caithness. The Government would need to make clear how savings affect its spending priorities and local allocations.
What should we expect from the December Budget?
The Budget should be an opportunity for ministers to explain not just how much they intend to spend, but how they plan to control the cost of delivering public services.
Several questions deserve answers.
First, how far has the Government progressed towards its workforce-reduction target? The public needs actual employment figures, not just a statement of intent.
Second, how much has been saved through reduced management costs, shared services, property changes and administrative reform? These figures should distinguish money already saved from savings that remain planned.
Third, which departments and public bodies are expected to contribute further savings in 2027/28? If councils and health boards are being asked to do more with less, it is reasonable to know what is expected of the rest of government.
Finally, will ministers explain how they intend to protect essential services while reducing the cost of administration?
These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic questions about accountability for public money.
Smaller government does not automatically mean better government
There is a danger in assuming that reducing staff numbers is always the answer.
Public services can suffer if experienced employees leave, vacancies remain unfilled in essential roles or administrative systems become less capable of supporting frontline staff. Cutting costs in one area can also create additional expenses elsewhere.
Equally, a growing workforce does not automatically deliver better services. More staff and more spending must produce results that justify the cost.
The real objective should be a public sector that delivers the services people need as efficiently as possible, with clear responsibility for decisions and evidence that money is being used effectively.
That requires more than a general promise to make savings. It requires ministers and public bodies to identify what works, what does not, and what can be changed without damaging essential services.
[b]Taxpayers deserve to see the whole picture
Scotland faces difficult choices as the next Budget approaches. Councils and NHS boards cannot escape the financial pressures, and some changes to staffing and services may prove unavoidable.
But the debate should not stop at hospitals, schools, social care and local amenities.
The Scottish Government has committed to reducing its workforce and cutting corporate costs. It should now demonstrate what those commitments mean in practice.
How much smaller will government become? How much money will actually be saved? Which activities will stop, and how will the public know whether the reforms have worked?
Those questions matter because the alternative is a familiar cycle: rising costs, new savings targets, local service reductions and another promise that efficiencies will eventually close the gap.
The December Budget should show whether ministers are prepared to apply the same scrutiny to the cost of running government as they apply to the services on which the public depends.
If Scotland is to make difficult financial choices, taxpayers deserve to know that every part of the public sector is being asked to demonstrate value for money, not just the councils and health boards closest to home.