Chamber and committees

I wanted to ask about the Northern Ireland protocol, but if that is off topic, I will not ask anything at all.

I have a question for Ms Snowden. You raised the issue of what could be done in Scotland to explain and publicise the issue of finding out about, and keeping up with, European legislation. Can you explain what—if anything—the UK, with its residual representation in the EU, is doing at this stage to keep track of legislation, and whether it does anything to publicise that?

I do not think that this question is tangential; it is closely relevant to what you have just said. You have had some recent correspondence with Lord Frost about the Northern Ireland protocol and the wider implications that that might have for Scotland. You have used quite strong language. Why have you said that you are “alarmed” by the state of the conversation between the UK and the European Union about that protocol?

It does not. It relates to the Northern Ireland protocol itself, so you can move on, convener.

As I said, the Scottish Government managed to work very well with the European Commission on some of the issues around promoting social cohesion to which the member alluded, and I am sure that we will do so again in the future.

In the past, we had an understanding that money would be directed and spent in devolved areas by a Government that had gone to the trouble of being elected in Scotland at some point more recent than the Suez crisis. It is clear, therefore, that the way in which the funds will now be allocated represents a UK Government infringement on areas that are firmly and fully devolved.

If the Tories do not see it as their job to stand up for the powers of this Parliament and this place, and to defend Scotland’s interests, there are many of us who—unapologetically—do. Money that Scotland would previously have received, for instance, under the seven-year EU structural fund programmes will now be distributed annually by the UK Government according to its own priorities, which could leave Scotland worse off—

My constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar received significant investment from EU funding sources over the years, much of it—to respond to a point that a member made earlier—while this place was in what we might call its long adjournment. That support helped to facilitate major infrastructure projects, transport links and new community facilities on the islands, as well as contributing to the establishment of the University of the Highlands and Islands and delivering wider community benefits through numerous training and social inclusion programmes.

Life for islanders would have been far more challenging without that support. Without the causeways linking Berneray and North Uist, Eriskay and South Uist and Vatersay and Barra, for example, I imagine that I would now be dedicating even more of my time than I currently do to the issue of ferries. In Harris, the significance of funding from the EU for invaluable infrastructure such as the Scalpay bridge and the road to Rèinigeadal cannot be overstated.

The loss of financial support from the EU will be sorely felt throughout my constituency unless the UK Government fully commits to allocating at least the same levels of investment that are needed to replace the loss of EU structural funds, as well as the funding from schemes such as the LEADER programmes and the common agricultural policy payments for crofters. It is disappointing, yet unsurprising, that the UK Government’s engagement with the devolved nations regarding the development of EU funding replacement schemes has been much weaker than the close working relationship that the Scottish Government had with the European Commission in the development of the structural fund programmes.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 allows Westminster, rather than this place, to allocate funds that were previously dispensed by the EU. It is increasingly clear that the UK is not, in that respect, a partnership of equals, despite many attempts to convince us otherwise. When spending decisions for Scotland are made not on the basis of the Scottish Government’s knowledge and experience, but according to a UK Government agenda, that simply adds to the complexity of the funding landscape and creates a confused, incoherent policy framework as well as financial inefficiencies.

I will address a key question that has come up several times today: the question of gratitude, as I suppose one might call it. Of course everybody wants to level up, however ill-defined that phrase might be, and everybody wants to share prosperity. Those principles are not controversial. However, we should remember that when the UK Government spends money in Scotland, it is—as we discussed earlier—spending Scottish taxpayers’ money.

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not have time, I am afraid. I must make some progress.

The UK Government must engage properly with the Scottish Government to ensure that the development of any UK-wide funding programmes, such as the UK shared prosperity and levelling up funds, actually meet the needs of Scotland’s local communities. If the UK Government continues to attempt to impose its own agenda and undermine the devolution settlement, that will raise unavoidable questions about whether, in its heart of hearts—if that is an entirely relevant phrase—it truly believes in the Scottish Parliament’s existence.

Scotland continues to have to deal with the negative consequences of a Brexit that we did not vote for and a last-minute hard Brexit deal that satisfies nobody and leaves us far worse off than we were before. We are a European nation and it is my hope—and the hope of many other people—that it is not too long before we are able once again to enjoy the benefits of EU membership, this time as an independent country.

Meanwhile, the UK Government’s spending review plans for levelling up and the UK shared prosperity fund are, in their operation, an infringement on the powers of the Scottish Parliament and do not come close to matching, in real terms, the significant EU funding revenue from which Scotland benefited for more than 40 years. I echo the calls for the UK Government to honour the promises that it made to Scotland, to work with the Scottish Government to ensure the continued development of such funding and to keep the interests of Scotland’s citizens, and Scotland’s democracy, at its heart.

I hope that the member will acknowledge at some point that these moneys are not acts of charity but are actually Scottish taxpayers’ moneys.

I have a final, brief question for Professor Smith. In the environmental debate, we now factor in questions around biodiversity intactness. Scotland seems to be doing a bit better than some places in the UK on that score but perhaps not as well as other places in Europe. Other witnesses might want to chip in, but what do you understand by the term “biodiversity intactness”? In parts of Scotland such as the Highlands and Islands, for very good historical reasons, there is a slight recoil from the word “wilderness”, so what is biodiversity intactness, and how do you reconcile that with attempts to repopulate fragile areas?