aTHE SNP spelled out its ''penny for Scotland'' budget in detail yesterday and reacted with fury to Labour claims that it had understated the cost of the party's manifesto commitments.

The Nationalists claimed that on a day when they were prepared to lay out across 16 pages the detail of how they would spend the proposed penny on the basic rate of tax to improve health, education and housing, it was ''ludicrous'' for Labour to make claims that there were uncosted elements in their manifesto totalling #648m.

The Nationalists plan to raise #690m over three years by rejecting Labour's proposed penny cut in the basic rate and using the proceeds to put an extra #259.5m into the NHS, #236m into housing, and #192.35m into education.

Party chief executive Michael Russell launched a stinging attack on Labour last night and a rebuttal running to no fewer than 49 points, claiming it was simply a rehash of criticism of the SNP manifesto.

''Their campaign is in chaos and division because of the leadership foisting the Tory Private Finance Initiative policy on an unwilling party. It is regurgitation and desperation. What their attack shows is that London Labour have been dragged on to the SNP's agenda for the Scottish Parliament election, which suits us just fine.''

Mr Russell cited the example of a Labour claim that plans for a network of commercial embassies would cost #50m a year. Instead, he said, the proposal was to use the existing 22 properties already owned worldwide by Scottish Trade International, the Scottish Tourist Board and Locate in Scotland, and seek to use these in a more co-ordinated way.

This was typical, claimed the SNP, of a Labour failure to take account of figures set out in yesterday's published Penny for Scotland document and costings based on the SNP's Holyrood Project, aimed at asking different Scottish Office departments to share best business practices in order to make modest efficiency savings.

The SNP laid out how over three years they would spend the penny levied on:

qEducation: books, equipment, computers and other materials, plus language and special needs teachers, resources for colleges and for university libraries, and money for co-ordinated child care;

qHealth: Accident and Emergency improvements, bed-blocking, public health, and staff pay and conditions including child care;

qHousing: Tackling dampness and providing new homes, combating homelessness, aiding rural areas, helping the elderly, and providing women's refuges.

Mr Russell claimed Labour's ''rambling'' document had been drafted by the former special adviser to the Chancellor, Mr Ed Milliband, and he issued a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal of the claims, citing sources for the SNP's costings such as academic and voluntary organisation evidence.

The SNP chief executive said it was rich of Labour to criticise SNP commitments when they were costed and paid for through identifiable sources which raise money over and above anything Labour were prepared to levy.

But a Labour spokesman said: ''Labour's analysis proved their manifesto didn't add up. They have to either ditch their uncosted promises, increase taxes still further, or admit to the new cuts they would have to make to Scotland's public services. Those charges still stand. Their manifesto is unravelling.''

Labour said the SNP's alternative to PFI remained unworkable, plans for hi-tech hot spots simply redirected resources from exiting budgets, and their nationally funded concessionary fares scheme relied on operators bearing some of the cost.

The SNP pledge for nursery nurses also depended on cutting the extra 5000 classroom assistants that Labour was pledged to deliver.