TORY Ministers have rejected pleas from the Scottish Government to talk about controversial post-Brexit spending plans, which could ultimately see Whitehall overrule devolved governments.
A planned meeting to discuss the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) between Scotland’s Investment Minister, Ivan McKee, and UK Housing, Communities and Local Government minister, Luke Hall, has now been cancelled for a second time.
The SNP politician said he has been told that it won’t take place until after the UK Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, which is expected to contain full details of the new scheme.
McKee said the Scottish Government had wanted input into how the fund – which replaces the European Structural Funds – would work.
He said the governments in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff wanted to make sure it was “fully devolved”.
He said that the money needs to be targeted in a “manner that suits the specific needs of Scotland’s people, communities and businesses.”
EU structural funds are used to reduce economic inequalities between regions and have been worth over £780 million to Scotland between 2014-2020, according to the Scottish Government.
But with the UK leaving Europe at the end of the year, Scotland will no longer have access to that money.
The UK Government has instead their new shared fund will be an adequate replacement.
But it will ultimately give ministers in London powers to spend huge sums of money in devolved areas, including “cultural and sporting activities, projects and events”.
Last week, after a poll put support for Scottish independence on 58%, one Tory source told reporters that Number 10 was planning on using the funds to cultivate closer ties with art and culture organisations north of the Border in an attempt to “increase its visibility”.
Previously, Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said Boris Johnson was keen on stamping the Union flag on major projects funded by the UKSPF.
He told The Telegraph’s Chopper’s Podcast that he wanted to show the “visual connection” between UK Government money and schemes in Scotland.
“We should be unashamed of our direct investment in communities across Scotland.
“We will see that, through the Shared Prosperity Fund, that is the money that the EU used to earmark for projects in Scotland and other parts of the UK.
“If they could have an EU flag on it, why not have the United
Kingdom flag on it to show that here is an example of our two governments in Scotland, working together, and the UK Government delivering for individual communities and projects the length and breadth of the country?”
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack confirmed the plan had been signed off by Number 10 and the Cabinet Office, and would kick in once Britain leaves the transition period with the European Union next year.
“Where there is direct investment or joint investment between the two governments, you would expect to see the Union Jack sitting alongside the Saltire,” he said.
In his letter, McKee accused his opposite number of “keeping the Scottish Government and the other devolved nations at arm’s length from the development of the UKSPF.”
This, he warned, was “both counterproductive and potentially detrimental to the future success and impact of the Fund”.
McKee said: “We already know that the proposed UK Internal Market Bill would take a wrecking ball to devolution and the Scottish Parliament supports the Scottish Government in not giving consent to that bill, including any implications for any successor scheme to the European structural funds.
“More broadly, in order for any future funding regime to have legitimacy, it must be legally and constitutionally sound and will require a legislative approach which fully respects the devolution settlement and the role of Scottish Ministers.”
He called for the meeting to be “reinstated as a matter of urgency”.
Meanwhile, Brexit negotiations could resume within days, despite Downing Street claiming last week that there was no point in talks continuing.
Michael Gove yesterday confirmed that the door had not been closed.
“It is ajar,” he said during an interview on BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show. “We hope that the EU will change their position”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel