The First Minister ():
That is another direct assault on devolution. I am
disappointed—although not surprised—that the United Kingdom
Government has decided to take that approach. It raises grave
concerns and uncertainty for communities. Those are compounded
by lack of detail about the future shape of the funds.
Funding of that nature should be
decided in this Parliament, with all the democratic
accountability that that brings, and not by remote Whitehall
departments that have little understanding of the needs of the
communities concerned. I encourage the UK Government to
reconsider its position.
The First Minister:
Let me think about that.
On balance, and after careful
consideration, I say no—I do not generally trust
Westminster.
This is a serious issue that is,
unfortunately, illustrative of a more general approach by the
UK Government to undermine this Parliament and devolution, and
to grab powers and resources from this Parliament. Whatever the
differences in this chamber, I had hoped that all of us could
unite to say no to that approach. Perhaps we will yet manage to
do so.
The UK Government has not consulted
or worked sufficiently with Scottish Ministers on development
of the shared prosperity fund. Despite our
development of clear proposals for a Scottish shared prosperity fund, the UK Government
has kept us at arm’s length throughout the process. It has
provided no clarity on its objectives and delivery plans, and
no evidence as to why what is clearly a devolved matter should
no longer be run or administered from Scotland. It is vital
that clarity be given urgently, and that we receive our fair
share of funding.
As has
highlighted, whatever the politics and the political
disagreements, it will be Scottish communities who are the
losers: Scottish people, businesses and organisations will lose
out. It is important that the needs and interests of those
communities be put first, and that they are not undermined and,
potentially, harmed for political reasons.