THERESA May has been called upon to publish the UK Government’s own analysis of the impact of Brexit on Scotland after David Mundell revealed Whitehall had agreed to share it privately with the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Secretary admitted the analysis did exist, that Nicola Sturgeon’s Government had done its own research and that at a recent meeting of the intergovernmental Joint Ministerial Committee on Brexit[JMC(EN)] both sides had agreed to exchange their impact assessments.
Asked if the UK Government was going to make its analysis public, Mr Mundell hinted it might at some stage. He replied: “That’s not a matter for discussion today. What I am saying is at the JMC(EN) it was agreed there should be a sharing of analysis.”
Earlier this month, the UK Government, in response to a Freedom of Information request, would neither confirm nor deny it had done any analysis on the impact of Brexit on different parts of the UK, saying that to admit it could harm Britain’s position in the Brussels talks.
The FoI request came about after James Chapman, a former senior aide to David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, claimed that the Whitehall analysis did indeed exist and suggested Scotland and north east England would suffer most from the impact of Brexit.
Yesterday, fresh analysis from the London School of Economics suggested Scotland would be hit hard by a soft Brexit to the tune of losing £17bn in the value of its goods and services over five years but would suffer much more if there were a hard no-deal Brexit, losing almost £30bn. The respective figures for Britain were £235bn and £430bn.
During an evidence session before the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State said he did “not recognise” the LSE figures and later described them as “provocative”.
He added: “What we all need to do is to come back to the situation that we’re seeking to get a deal; we are not seeking to achieve a no-deal scenario. Nobody denies a no deal would be disruptive. What we need to do is focus on getting the deal and that’s where I am.”
The SNP’s Deidre Brock, who sits on the committee, said: “At long last the UK Government has confirmed they have carried out a Brexit impact assessment on Scotland; now they must publish it.”
Noting how the LSE analysis had suggested Scotland would “pay a heavy price for being dragged out of the European single market,” she added: “Theresa May can’t sit on this impact assessment; the UK Government’s analysis on Scotland must be released immediately.”
Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrats’ Scotland spokeswoman, echoed the call, suggesting the First Minister should make public any shared analysis. “The people of Scotland deserve to hear exactly what Brexit will mean for them.”
During the evidence session, Mr Mundell also revealed how Whitehall officials were now engaged in a “deep dive” into the details about how specific areas would be dealt with in regard to the 111 powers and responsibilities coming back from Brussels post Brexit.
He said there would be a “presumption of devolution” but some powers would be subject to UK frameworks and he hoped to progress on this in “in very short order”.
In other developments:
*Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator, said a trade deal with the UK would take years to complete, noting: “I am convinced a path is possible as long as we de-dramatise discussion. My team are already starting work on the draft of a treaty for the exit of the UK from the EU.”
*Donald Tusk, the European Council President, said it was up to the UK if there was a “good deal, no deal or no Brexit”.
*Jean-Claude Juncker moved to reassure the UK that there was no "hostile" agenda from Brussels, stressing how a no-deal scenario was "not our working assumption".
*Migration Watch UK said movement between the UK and the EU should remain "largely unhindered" after Brexit save for new curbs on migration for work and
*the City of London Corporation warned Square Mile firms would begin activating their Brexit contingency plans unless the Government provided clarity over a transition period by the end of the year.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel