MORE Brexit cash has been spent on aiding the rural economy than on any other area, according to figures.
Money was allocated to the Scottish Government as Westminster distributed contingency cash to help devolved authorities and English regional powers prepare for the impact of leaving the EU.
Now the Scottish Government has published its Brexit consequentials spending breakdown.
The move comes in response to a request under Freedom of Information laws.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's no-deal Brexit claim inaccurate, says press watchdog
In the 2017-18 financial year, £6.6 million was passed to decision-makers in Edinburgh, with another £37.3m to follow in 2018-19 and another £54.7m to come in 2019-20.
A detailed account of how the first year’s funds were used was not provided.
However, a breakdown of last year’s cash, which was added to the Scottish Block Grant, shows £9.2m was used on activities within the rural economy portfolio area, which is headed by Fergus Ewing.
Another £4.8m went on administration and £3.6m was diverted to finance, economy and fair work.
READ MORE: Brexit: UK Government stands down civil servants preparing for no deal
At £0.1m each, the Forestry Commission (Scotland) and Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service received the lowest share of the funding.
However, the rundown only covers £27m of the sum, with the remainder “being spent by portfolios as part of the 2018-19 Scottish Budget”.
Officials said the Scottish Government “does not receive funds from the UK Government for a specific purpose” and has allocated the cash as it has seen fit.
Responding to the request, submitted late last month, a spokesperson said: “Given the range and diversity of work ongoing across Government and its interaction with day-to-day responsibilities, it is simply not possible to provide a full breakdown of cost.”
READ MORE: Brexiteers urge Theresa May to quit after latest delay
Meanwhile, the 2019-20 sum is “fully absorbed in supporting work already underway, including EU exit preparation”.
Earlier this month non-for-profit group Scottish Rural Action reported that Brexit-related immigration curbs could make some of the country’s most vulnerable communities “unviable”.
The report found depopulation and underfunding could add to existing structural stresses in remote and rural areas, with Constitutional Relations Secretary Michael Russell commenting that many people living in rural parts think Brexit’s effects “will be nothing short of catastrophic”.
Professor Rebecca Kay, a Scottish Government advisor on immigration, subsequently told MSPs that some communities may no longer be here in 10 years or more.
She stated: “There are areas where not only the only current contributor to local population growth but the only possible contributor to local population growth is in-migration of people of reproductive age.”
In March the SNP accused Theresa May of a “cynical last-minute attempt to buy support” for her rejected Brexit deal after her government announced a £1.6 billion fund for depressed towns, with more than half of the total set to go to Leave-voting areas in the north of England.
Delivering his Spring Statement days later, Chancellor Philip Hammond suggested the SNP should be more grateful for Scotland’s share of Treasury spending. Speaking in the House of Commons, he told MPs: “Scotland gets its share of the increased spending on capital and resource, but precious little thanks do we ever hear from those on the SNP benches in exchange for it."
Hammond was responding after Kirsty Blackman said Scotland’s resource block grant had decreased.
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