ADDITIONAL funding given to local councils in England should extend north of the Border, Finance Secretary Kate Forbes has said.
Deals have been struck in recent weeks between the UK Government and local authorities in England to support businesses and individuals affected by coronavirus restrictions.
Forbes said providing that assistance in other parts of the UK creates a “legitimate expectation that enhanced support will be available to businesses in Scotland” – but she said that expectation cannot be met due to financial constraints.
In a letter to Chancellor Rishi Sunak, Forbes called for “urgent clarity” on any extra funding to be made available to Scotland as a result of the packages offered to the Liverpool and Manchester areas.
She wrote: “This additional expenditure should attract consequentials above what has already been guaranteed.
“These decisions will create a legitimate expectation that enhanced support will be available to businesses in Scotland – expectations that cannot be met due to the limited funding available to the Scottish Government.
“I would be grateful if you could provide urgent clarity on further funding this additional spending by the UK Government will provide to the Scottish Government to help inform our forthcoming decisions on business support and to ensure that Scottish businesses are not disadvantaged directly as a result of UK Government decisions.”
Forbes also called on Sunak to consider changes to the furlough scheme, including an extension so it can be used for the supply chains of businesses hit by local lockdowns and restrictions which force closure.
Her call comes after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said “urgent discussions” should be held between devolved administrations and the UK Government, with the Scottish Government set to publish a tiered framework of Covid restrictions.
Sturgeon told the daily coronavirus briefing that the financial support she will outline alongside the new tiered system is the maximum that can be offered from Scottish coffers, but the minimum required to protect businesses and individuals.
She said: “In common with other devolved administrations and, indeed, many councils now across England, we will continue to pursue urgent discussions with the Treasury about the provision of adequate support and funding to support businesses and individuals through the kind of restrictions that are likely to be necessary in the period ahead.”
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government is seeking a minimum of £62 million a year for the fishing industry to make up for the loss of European funds after Brexit.
Fisheries Secretary Fergus Ewing warned that without financial support, Scotland’s seafood industry faces “potentially crippling delays and additional costs” when the EU transition period finishes at the end of December.
In a letter to UK Environment Secretary George Eustice, he said the “harm” Brexit will cause “must be minimised”.
The money the Scottish Government is seeking would replace funding that currently comes from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
Ewing said “urgent clarification” is needed on what will replace that funding, as he insisted the case for Scotland to receive a “significant uplift has been clearly set out” – highlighting that the country has 14% of current European Union aquaculture production and 9% of EU sea fisheries landings.
He told Eustice: “The loss of EU funding comes at a time when the biggest risk to Scotland’s seafood industry is the UK Government’s Brexit proposals.
“The harm Brexit will impose on the people and economy of Scotland must be minimised as far as possible.”
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