TORY ministers are “parking their tanks” on areas of devolved competence, MSPs have been told.
Speaking in Holyrood earlier Trade Minister Ivan McKee railed against the Shared Prosperity Fund, a Westminster initiative to replace structural funds from the EU that will allow UK ministers to spend in devolved areas.
He accused the UK Government of engaging in an “assault” on devolution.
Speaking to the Finance and Constitution Committee, McKee added: “We’re seeing the UK Government effectively parking their tanks on big areas of devolved competence through this process.”
It was confirmed last week that cash from the fund will be allocated centrally from Westminster, something McKee described as “disappointing”.
READ MORE: Westminster outlines plans to bypass Holyrood and spend in devolved areas
In a letter to Finance Secretary Kate Forbes, UK Chief Secretary to the Treasury Steve Barclay said: “The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will help to level up and create opportunity across the UK in places most in need.
“It will operate UK-wide, using the new financial assistance powers in the UK Internal Market Act.
“We will ramp up funding so that total domestic UK-wide funding will at least match EU receipts on average reaching around £1.5 billion a year.”
Speaking at the weekend, Forbes [below] said the UK Government announcement was “as feared” following an EU exit that Scotland did not vote for.
McKee told MSPs: “This is hugely disappointing and to be frank shows no respect for devolution, it shows no consideration of the distinct needs of the people and places in Scotland.”
The Scottish Government protested against the passage of the Internal Market Act at Westminster, claiming it would be a “power grab” on the devolved administrations. All MSPs, besides the Scottish Tories, voted down the legislation.
McKee said: “What we warned of with that Act has come to pass with alarming speed.”
He referred to the fund as another “power grab”, adding it “disrespects the needs and interests of Scotland, the Scottish Government’s powers and responsibilities, and ignores the fact that we have successfully delivered the previous EU structural funds since devolution in partnership with local authorities, other agencies and third sector bodies, making a huge difference to communities and individuals across the country.”
He went on to say he has requested a meeting on 10 occasions over the past few years with UK ministers for clarity on the fund, but was only able to do so in November.
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