The European Union emerged as a key election issue yesterday when the Scottish Government was accused of “financial incompetence” after it emerged ministers have handed back around £134 million of unspent European Union funding.
The allegation had also formed part of a critique of the Scottish Government by columnist Brian Wilson.
Today, however, one of our readers argues that the issue should be framed within a wider context – including the impact of Brexit on the Scottish economy.
Fraser Grant of Edinburgh writes:
"The EU funding issue is far more complex than portrayed by Brian Wilson and the European Regional Development Fund: Annual Implementation Reports, updated in December 2023, showed that the UK spend for England was still waiting for 30 per cent of the EU funding to be spent.
The current five-year funding period covered Brexit negotiations which added uncertainty and the Covid pandemic that put many projects on hold. Also, final expenditure figures will not be known until 2025, when the programmes formally close and it works by the Scottish Government paying partners and then claiming reimbursement from the European Commission, so the idea of "handing back" is nonsense.
However, the sums involved can’t match the billions lost to Scotland through being outwith the EU. Brexit, which is supported by all the London parties, and the resultant austerity, is not being discussed during the General Election campaign. As Labour is committed to adopting the Tories' fiscal rules and prolonging austerity by promising not to raise the main taxes, this means cutting public services by £18 billion in order to balance the books.
What should be cutting through is Labour’s myth that Great British Energy is a generation company capable of reducing domestic bills as claimed by Anas Sarwar during the STV leaders debate last week rather than a private investment vehicle competing with existing energy companies for a profit as espoused by Keir Starmer and more likely to result in 300 office jobs than the claimed 69,000 jobs merely transferring from oil and gas into renewables.
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