IT is striking but not wholly unexpected that the Tories have broken yet another manifesto pledge by failing to match billions of pounds worth of EU development funding for Scotland after Brexit.
The government pledged in its 2019 election manifesto that a new Shared Prosperity Fund would “at a minimum” match the EU regional funds that were returned to the UK from its EU membership contributions, and “reaffirmed” that commitment in last October’s Budget.
These “EU structural funds” were designed to support economic development and reduce regional inequalities, particularly through investment in small businesses, skills and innovation, the green economy and other infrastructure projects.
READ MORE: One rule for the Conservative party liars, another for the rest of us poor saps
However, the recent announcement of this Fund will see only £32 million allocated to Scotland for 2022-23, a staggering £151m short of the £183m estimated to be an appropriate replacement for EU Structural Funds.
It is clear that despite UK Government assurances, the funding promised will not be delivered and this will hit key projects and communities.
Like so many aspects of Brexit, this broken promise is yet another addition to a growing list of broken promises.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
IT’S no surprise that even the “Scottish Tories are ashamed of Prime Minister” (Apr 16) or that the Mid Galloway and Wigtown West Tory candidate is begging the public to put aside the actions of the UK Government on the dubious grounds that these are local elections dealing with local matters.
She conveniently ignores that in future years Boris Johnson’s government’s Shared Prosperity Fund will be increasingly eroding Scottish Government and local authority power by selecting and directly funding prestigious projects in Dumfries and Galloway.
READ MORE: Jacob Rees-Mogg hits back at archbishop over Rwanda scheme
She cannot deny that her name is on the ballot paper seeking support for the same London-based, controlled and funded Conservative and Unionist Party whose government ministers are shaming the whole country by their lack of respect for the law or humanity through their actions and policies.
Potential Tory supporters should not forget that whoever is paying the piper will be calling the tunes after May 5.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
IT will take a lot more than a manifesto commitment on council tax, Mr Ross! Anyway, why should anyone believe a Conservative manifesto commitment, when just this week the effects of a broken manifesto commitment came home to roost! Triple lock on pensions come to mind, as pensioners received a miserly 3.1% increase to their state pensions.
This miserly was as a result of the Conservatives abolishing their manifesto commitment to retain the triple lock.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
WE read that a poll prediction for the General Election of 2024 is a minority Labour government with support from the SNP, given on condition of Keir Starmer “granting” [sic] a second independence referendum. But I thought the independence referendum was going to be held in 2023?
READ MORE: SNP-backed Labour government is 'central forecast' for 2024 election
Is this pollster assuming that the Scottish Government’s commitment to a referendum next year is only pretence, and that they are in reality waiting for an eventuality which may or may not occur in 2024? I most sincerely hope he is wrong.
Derrick McClure
Aberdeen
THIS is in response to the letter by Christopher Bruce (April 16) –
1. I did not point out any “illegality”, only that a plebiscite was undemocratic.
2. The Union of Scotland and England was not a plebiscite. There was a vote in the pre-Union Scottish Parliament to approve/accept the Articles of Union as amended – 110 to 67. That is a total of 177 yet the number of eligible commissioners who took part in that vote was 154.
3. I made no mention whatsoever of English law so I cannot understand why he wrote: “English law has no bearing”.
Michael Follon
Glenrothes
YOUR chief football writer must surely be having a laugh in Friday’s National when he claims that Rangers would benefit from the introduction of VAR. Of all teams, Rangers (despite their public comments) dread its introduction. The reason is simple. The pro-Rangers refereeing endemic in the Scottish game would be scrutinised more than it is at the moment and and a team given so many dubious penalty awards would not welcome this development. Matthew Lindsay, in making this comment, sides with Rangers and differs from the majority of fans who accept that to beat Rangers you generally have to beat the referee too.
Jim Butchart
Haddington
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 here