Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross has been taunted over the £1300 tax cut he would receive under his party’s financial plans.
The Scottish Lib Dems have produced a mock cheque in Ross’ name which shows the cash windfall he would benefit from.
Income tax rates and bands are a matter for the Scottish Parliament, with middle and higher income earners paying more than people south of the border.
The biggest difference is Scots pay a 41 per cent higher rate when their income hits £43,663, unlike in England where a 40 per cent rate only kicks in once earnings reach £50,271.
The Tories have criticised the higher tax paid by Scots and support parity with England.
Their Holyrood manifesto says they would realign the rates and bands when tax revenues outstrip public spending.
However, critics have pointed out that raising the higher income tax band to the level in England would only benefit people earning £43,663 or more.
If this policy was implemented, MSPs and MPs would be better off by more than £1300 a year while people on low incomes would not receive a penny.
The Lib Dems have described the tax cut as the "Ross rebate" and produced a giant cheque which shows the £1,321 gain the Tory leader would make.
It was held outside Scottish Conservative headquarters in Edinburgh by party candidate Rebecca Bell.
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said: "After the election Douglas Ross already intends to be an MSP, an MP and a referee. Now on top of that he wants to add a Ross Rebate to the money he gets running the line at Ross County.
"At a time when the Conservatives are already mired in allegations of cronyism, this is a sneak peak into where their priorities lie.
"Over the next five years we should be focused on rebuilding our NHS, supporting small business and helping people who have been thrust into poverty by the pandemic, not tax cuts for Conservative MSPs."
A spokesman for the Scottish Tories said: “As our manifesto makes clear, funding Scotland’s recovery and protecting public services must come first. Tax cuts should only be considered in the future, in a number of years, when we can afford to do so.”
