The rules that govern who pays Income Tax in Scotland is determined by whether an individual is considered a Scottish taxpayer. For most people, determining Scottish taxpayer status is straightforward. Individuals who live in Scotland are considered Scottish taxpayers, while those who live elsewhere in the UK are not.

If a taxpayer has homes in both Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, HMRC guidance is used to determine their main home for Scottish Income Tax purposes. Those without a permanent home who regularly stay in Scotland, such as offshore workers or hotel residents, may also be liable for SRIT.

If a person moves to or from Scotland during a tax year, their tax liability is determined by where they spent the majority of that year. Scottish taxpayer status applies to the entire tax year and cannot be split.

Those defined as Scottish taxpayers are liable to pay the Scottish Rate of Income Tax (SRIT) on their non-savings and non-dividend income.

Many modern companies insist on the inclusion of restrictive covenants to limit the freedoms of employees upon the termination of their contracts. However, the High Court recently reinforced the stringent legal principles governing the enforceability of such restrictive covenants, suggesting that they often overstep.

A young man had been working as a salesperson for a UK subsidiary of an American company that sells made-to-measure suits and shirts manufactured in the USA. His original contract included restrictive covenants limited to 6 months. However, the contract was changed in 2022 to double the duration of the non-compete covenant to 12 months and remove the previous reliefs, significantly widening their scope. The employee asserted that he was not informed of these changes, and the claimant failed to produce any evidence to justify the widening of the scope of the limitations or the doubling of their duration.

The employee’s initial performance was strong, although following a conduct issue in January 2025, he was subjected to an addendum requiring humiliating and intrusive conditions, including weekly “counselling”, a ban from earned trips, and exclusion from leadership roles. The ex-employee had also raised product quality concerns, which he felt were ignored, and found the work culture ‘toxic’ and the disciplinary action both unfair and intrusive. As a consequence, he resigned in frustration in 2025, only to be subjected to an “insensitive, verging on brutal” retaliation. Within two days, the HR manager had cut off all IT access, threatened an investigation, and banned the defendant from the office. A day later, on Sunday, the claimant’s lawyers hand-delivered a threatening letter to the defendant’s home seeking to enforce a 12-month restrictive covenant. Moreover, there were claims that the defendant had breached his contractual duties, including running down his sales in the months prior to his resignation, and soliciting staff.

The High Court dismissed the claim for breach of contract and ruled that the 12-month restrictive covenant was unenforceable, as it far exceeded what was reasonably necessary to protect the claimant’s business. Moreover, the Court found the decline in performance to be stress-related and due to his inevitable demotivation.

This case reinforces the longstanding principle that courts will not uphold a covenant if it extends beyond what is strictly necessary to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests, which are typically delimited to confidential information and customer goodwill. The case serves as a warning in relation to the risks employers run when their conduct is perceived to be heavy-handed, humiliating, or toxic, particularly during disciplinary or exit procedures. HR departments should be wary of engaging in overtly humiliating or heavy-handed disciplinary rituals, as these may be viewed as a form of brutality.

Food and energy costs remain central concerns for households and businesses because they influence everything from wages to margins to day to day operating decisions. Inflation is easing compared to the volatility of the last few years, but the picture for the next twelve months is still mixed. Prices appear set to rise more slowly, yet neither category is likely to fall in any meaningful way.

Food price outlook

Food prices surged during the supply chain disruptions of 2021 to 2023 and were pushed higher again by wage pressures, transport costs and global shipping instability. Although the pace of increase has slowed during the past year, prices remain high. Many clients still question why food costs have not dropped as headline inflation falls. The reason is that the underlying conditions that drove those increases have not disappeared. Agriculture, food production, and distribution still face labour shortages, higher input costs, and ongoing uncertainty in global trade routes.

The most likely outcome for the coming year is a gradual easing in the rate of food inflation rather than a reduction in prices. Supermarkets report calmer supply chains and producers appear more willing to absorb cost pressures in order to protect sales volumes. Better harvests in some regions and lower freight costs should also help. These factors together should keep the next year more stable than the recent past.

Energy price outlook

Energy prices have been among the most unpredictable elements of the recent inflation cycle. While the extreme spikes have eased, the underlying global influences remain. The UK is particularly exposed because it relies heavily on imported gas and is tied to international pricing. Global gas markets continue to react to geopolitical tensions, shipping disruptions and variations in European storage levels. These variables explain why energy pricing still carries a degree of uncertainty.

However, the direction for next year looks a little steadier.

What this means for business planning

The next year is unlikely to bring substantial falls in food or energy prices, but the environment should feel less pressured. This increased stability provides an opportunity for better budgeting and more confident forecasting. Hospitality businesses and manufacturers may find it easier to plan pricing strategies, menus and supply arrangements. Broader stability also supports decisions on energy efficiency projects since assumptions about future savings appear more reliable.

As we look ahead to 2026, there is growing speculation about how the Bank of England will manage interest rates during what many economists believe will be a period of calmer inflation, steadier wage growth and a more predictable economic backdrop. After several years shaped by sharp price rises, supply chain shocks and policy responses that required rapid increases to the Bank Rate, the outlook for the coming year appears more settled and this is creating a sense that borrowing costs may edge downwards rather than upwards.

The current Bank Rate stands at around four per cent following a series of cuts through 2024 and 2025 as inflation eased gradually. Policymakers have indicated that they remain alert to any resurgence in inflationary pressure, yet they also recognise that the period of high inflation is now behind us. If this trend continues and inflation drifts closer to the Bank’s long term target, it will give the Monetary Policy Committee more room to make modest reductions during 2026. Many forecasters expect something in the region of a quarter to half a percentage point of cuts during the year, although the timing will depend heavily on the data released each quarter.

For households and businesses, this would create a slightly more comfortable lending environment. Mortgage borrowers on variable deals may feel some relief as repayments fall a little and businesses that rely on flexible credit facilities could find that their financing costs ease. Fixed mortgage rates may also become more attractive if lenders anticipate further gradual reductions. However, the broader economic impact is unlikely to be dramatic, since the Bank is not expected to deliver large or rapid cuts. The emphasis is more likely to remain on steady adjustments that avoid disrupting confidence or encouraging excessive borrowing.

It is worth noting that a full return to the ultra-low interest rate environment seen before the pandemic is not expected. Structural changes in the UK economy, global supply conditions and the government’s fiscal position all point towards a future in which interest rates remain higher than the levels seen in the decade prior to 2020. Even so, a move towards slightly lower borrowing costs in 2026 would be consistent with a maturing recovery and a gradual balancing of supply and demand across the economy.

Overall, the most probable outcome for 2026 is a measured reduction in interest rates that supports economic stability without risking a renewed surge in inflation.

In the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor had been expected to increase fuel duty rates. However, she has extended the fuel duty cut for a further 6 months to help support households and businesses. 

The Chancellor said ‘I know that the cost of travelling to and from work is still too expensive, so I am extending the 5p cut until September 2026. And because I know that changes in wholesale prices are not always passed onto motorists, I am bringing in new rules to mandate petrol forecourts to share real-time prices through a new Fuel Finder.’ 

This means that the temporary cut in the rates of fuel duty introduced at Spring Statement in March 2022, and extended multiple times is to be extended for a further 6 months until 31 August 2026.

The planned inflation-based increase for 2026-27 will be cancelled. Together with the launch of Fuel Finder, these measures are expected to save families £89 next year compared to previous plans.