Fairness Has a Cost: Reimagining Universalism in Scotland
Universalism has long been one of the defining features of Scotland’s approach to public policy. Free university tuition, free prescriptions, free personal care for older people, and universal concessionary travel are not only widely used, but widely defended. Together, they have come to symbolise a vision of Scotland that prioritises collective provision and social equality, often contrasted with more market-oriented models elsewhere in the UK. Yet as pressure on public finances intensifies, it is becoming increasingly clear that this model cannot continue indefinitely in its current form.
As a disabled person, I have directly benefited from Scotland’s commitment to universal provision. Access to free prescriptions, bus travel and social support has made daily life more manageable and has provided a degree of dignity and security that should not be understated. These policies matter, and for many people they are not abstract principles but essential foundations of independence and wellbeing. It is precisely because of this that the debate about sustainability matters so much. If universalism becomes financially untenable, those who rely on public services most stand to lose the most.
At its simplest, universalism means that public services and benefits are provided to everyone, regardless of income. The principle is rooted in the idea that access to essential services should be a right of citizenship rather than a form of targeted assistance. In Scotland, this approach has enjoyed consistent political support across much of the devolved era, reflecting both public opinion and a broader commitment to social democratic values. Surveys indicate that a large majority of Scots support free prescriptions and free tuition, suggesting that universalism remains politically resilient even as fiscal pressures rise.
Supporters of universalism point to several clear advantages. Universal systems tend to have higher take-up rates, as individuals are not deterred by complex eligibility rules or the stigma often associated with means-tested benefits. Administration is often simpler, reducing the risk that those most in need fall through the cracks. There is also a political logic at work: when everyone benefits, services are more likely to be defended and protected over time.
Free university tuition is frequently cited as a flagship example. Introduced following the abolition of upfront fees in 2008, the policy was framed as a way of widening access to higher education and preventing young people from graduating with significant debt. Free prescriptions, introduced in 2011, were similarly defended on the grounds that even modest charges can discourage people from seeking necessary medical treatment. In both cases, the intention was to remove barriers and promote equality of access. Beyond principle, there is an economic case for universalism. Investment in education, healthcare, and social care can support long-term productivity and wellbeing. From this perspective, universal services are not simply redistributive but preventative, reducing future costs associated with poor health outcomes or limited educational attainment.
However, the financial context in which these policies operate has become markedly more challenging. Scotland faces rising demand for public services driven by demographic change, particularly an ageing population, alongside constrained budget growth. Universal benefits, by their nature, involve significant and recurring expenditure, and their costs rise as demand increases. At some point, governments are forced to make choices – not about whether to value fairness, but about how best to protect it with limited resources.
This is where the limits of universalism become apparent. When benefits are provided to everyone, resources are inevitably spread more thinly. A clear example is free school meals. While ensuring that no child goes hungry is a well-intentioned and commendable policy goal, providing free meals to children from the wealthiest households diverts funding that could otherwise be used to improve provision for those who genuinely depend on it. Better-quality and nutritious meals, extended eligibility during school holidays, or additional support services could all be strengthened by targeting resources more carefully.
Similar questions arise elsewhere. In higher education, universities rely on a capped public budget, and as participation has increased, funding per student has declined in real terms. This has raised concerns about teaching quality, staff workloads and, more broadly, long-term sustainability of funding higher education in Scotland. Within healthcare, universal free prescriptions mean that public funds subsidise widely used, low-cost medicines such as paracetamol for higher-income groups, at a time when health and social care systems are experiencing significant workforce and capacity constraints.
Acknowledging these realities, however, does not mean rejecting universalism outright. Nor does it imply a lack of compassion. Rather, it reflects an understanding that public spending must be prioritised if it is to remain effective. Adaptations such as targeted support, partial means-testing or limited charges for those with the greatest ability to pay could help preserve universal access for those who need it most.
Universalism remains deeply embedded in Scotland’s political identity, closely tied to ideas of fairness, dignity and shared responsibility. But fairness has a cost, and it is not served by policies that assume public resources are limitless. Protecting the most vulnerable, including disabled people who depend on public services, requires an honest reassessment of how support is distributed and sustained.
The challenge is not to abandon universalism, but to rethink and reimagine it: to ensure that public spending is targeted where it makes the greatest difference, while preserving the principles that underpin collective provision. How Scotland navigates this balance will shape both the credibility of its social model and the future of its devolved settlement.
Jeremy Balfour is a Scottish independent politician who formerly served as a Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region from 2016 to 2025 and has continued to represent Lothian as an Independent MSP since 2025.
