THE Scottish Tories are in the muck for claiming victory over cash for farmers - that their party withheld six years ago.
Unveiling a pre-election spending package, new Chancellor Sajid Javid announced £160 million for Scottish farmers.
That cash settles a six-year dispute over the redistribution of Common Agricultural Payments (CAP) from Europe.
Back in 2013, the EU changed the payment system and distributed uplift money to put Scotland's hill farmers on par with the average per-hectare monies give out in other member nations.
But the UK Government decided the payments should be spread across the whole farming sector instead.
READ MORE: Westminster: PM faces MPs after Commons defeat
Last summer Michael Gove, then head of Westminster's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that money would not reach the Scots farmers as it had been allocated elsewhere.
That was despite calls by the Scottish Government and an admission by Tory Banff and Buchan MP David Duguid that "a mistake was made".
Today Twitter turned on the Scots Tories after they took credit for the U-turn, posting: "These extra funds for Scottish farmers just show how @ScotTories are making a difference at Westminster. We demanded a review, it recommended that Scottish farmers recieved the convergence funding, and now that is being carried out."
These extra funds for Scottish farmers just show how @ScotTories are making a difference at Westminster.
— Scottish Conservatives (@ScotTories) September 4, 2019
We demanded a review, it recommended that Scottish farmers received the convergence funding, and now that is being carried out.#SpendingReview2019 pic.twitter.com/mLkw4VaScJ
Within two hours, it had attracted more than 180 comments to fewer than 60 "likes".
One commenter said: "Extra funds you say? £160 million you say? Isn't it quite a co-incidence that that amount equals the amount of EU convergence funding that you Tories 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗟𝗘 from the Scottish hill farmers?"
Extra funds you say? £160 million you say?
— Vikings Eat Spam (@thatscot) September 4, 2019
Isn't it quite a co-incidence that that amount equals the amount of EU convergence funding that you Tories 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗟𝗘 from the Scottish hill farmers?
Another stated: "It’s EU money that was due for Scotland anyway. You can’t fudge it. We all know."
It’s EU money that was due for Scotland anyway. You can’t fudge it. We all know. #SpendingReview2019 #IndyRef2
— Neale Hanvey 🏴 🇮🇪 🇪🇺🎗 (@JNHanvey) September 4, 2019
And a third wrote: "Isn't this the amount the EU gave which Gove swerved to English farmers? You can promise the moon when an election approaches".
Meaningless waffle with a General Election in the offing and isn't this the amount the EU gave which Gove swerved to English farmers? You can promise the moon when an election approaches but it's really just the same old empty lies.
— emma green (@emmadora) September 4, 2019
Commenting on Javid's announcement, SNP Rural Affairs spokesperson Deidre Brock said the Scottish Government has already ring-fenced £160m to support the farmers as part of its new Programme for Government and accused UK ministers of trying to dictate Holyrood's spending.
She said: "It was the SNP that fought hard to win back the £160 million owed to Scotland’s farmers. We want that money to go straight into their hands. That’s a decision the SNP Government has already made – as was announced yesterday. It is not for a Tory Chancellor to dictate terms on money that is owed to Scotland.”
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