December 17, 2024 - 10:00am
It may seem peculiar that the Scottish Government sends money to Darfur or Malawi, as recently highlighted by Tories north of the border, when it has its own intractable social problems at home. We are forever hearing that a quarter of Scottish children are in poverty. Earlier this year, the SNP government declared a homelessness “emergency”. Is John Swinney not behaving like a ragged-trousered philanthropist, to quote Robert Tressell’s famous novel?
One reason is of course political vanity: the SNP always wants to play at being an independent nation even though it isn’t — especially in Europe where it has long had its own quasi-diplomatic presence in Brussels. The Scottish Government was rebuked last year by the Foreign Office for using devolved resources to promote the cause of independence abroad. The SNP has opened a number of foreign missions in locations including Washington, Paris, and Berlin — duplicating the UK’s own diplomatic infrastructure — on which it plans to spend a reported £27 million next year. Foreign affairs are a reserved matter under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, and therefore the sole responsibility of the UK Government and UK Parliament.
But humanitarian activities are not generally regarded as being in breach of the Scottish Parliament’s devolved powers. Under a previous Labour administration led by Jack McConnell, the Scottish Executive, as it then was, built a relationship with the African state of Malawi to honour the memory of Scotland’s great missionary explorer David Livingstone, who devoted much of his earnings to combatting slavery in the 19th century. This would count as a legitimate purpose for modest Government expenditure.
Less easy to justify was Nicola Sturgeon’s virtue-signalling award of “reparations” to the Global South after COP 26 in Glasgow in 2021, to “mitigate the impact of climate change”. The UK Government does not support the idea of reparations, as Rishi Sunak made clear at COP27, and regarded Sturgeon’s action as a transparently political stunt intended to embarrass Britain. The sum involved — £5 million — was ultimately nugatory, and it is still not clear that it has actually been donated. A freedom of information request established that it had not been actioned by July 2023. Meanwhile, developing countries affected by global warming are seeking a “loss and damage” payment of over £500 billion.
The UK Government is more relaxed about modest donations to charities such as the £375,000 given to three NGOs in Darfur. It is a sum that would anyway be lost as a rounding error in the £61-billion Scottish Budget.
Scotland has been a nation in its own right since 1707, and it is not unreasonable for a national government to make humanitarian gestures. It is entirely proper for the Government to promote Scotland’s “brand” abroad, provided this does not involve conniving to undermine the Union. Scottish first ministers probably spend almost as much attending Tartan Day celebrations in America. No one is complaining about that, or the trade promotions which come with it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnother very good article from Mr. McWhirter who, for many years, has been (IMHO) the most astute commentator on Scottish politics. I have one micro-quibble: “Scotland has been a nation in its own right since 1707, and it is not unreasonable for a national government to make humanitarian gestures.” This implies that Scotland was not a nation before the 1707 Act of Union, but was a nation afterwards. Surely there is a missing “not” in the middle of “has been“. But if you insert the “not”, then the argument in the sentence becomes a non-sequitur.
Although many SNP policies make no sense to outsiders, there is method in the SNP’s madness. These kinds of policies are, as Iain McWhirter points out, intended to show Westminster in a bad light in the eyes of Scotland’s chattering classes and what gets called “Civic Scotland”. But mugs like me pay extra income tax (i.e. higher than in England) for living in Scotland and I sense that there is growing irritation at the use of our money to fund Holyrood’s farcical pretence of moral superiority.
The word ‘modest’ is used by the author and i think that is about right to describe this contribution to foreign aid and in many cases supporting those affected by war and natural disasters. As for paying increased tax, most people get extra benefits in Scotland and can see where it goes. This is one reason i think they will continue to support parties who promote a progressive and fairer system. I look forward to those who oppose this, saying where they will cut as they have been pretty vague to date.
I’d cut Scottish ministerial limousine and iPhone expenses.
It is one thing for independent individuals to contribute to a charity to help people in trouble abroad, quite another for a government to do this on behalf of them.
Yes, we were not given any say in the granting of £750,000 for aid to Gaza, 24 hours before the then First Minister’s in-laws were able to escape. Neither were MSPs allowed any say in the matter.
Where would I cut Scottish government spending, besides the foreign aid and the climate reparations? There is the £100,000 per year that is given to Stonewall, £200,000 per year given to Trans activist groups so that they can brainwash schoolkids and the large sums the SNP government pays in lawyers fees for litigation involving the Westminster government aimed at furthering trans ideology. Oh yes, and the spend on enforcing Humza Useless’ blasphemy-lite legislation. I could go on.
I’m with you on resenting my higher income tax contributions being squandered on woke lunacy. I do wonder what would be the outcome of a referendum on the future of Holyrood (not that this will happen, of course).
You could have mentioned the sum of £750,000 of “aid” which Humza Yousaf diverted to Gaza, shortly before his wife’s family were allowed to leave Gaza and travel to Turkey, prior to coming to Scotland. Foreign aid or a terrorists’ ransom ?
As a non UK citizen, I fail to understand why Scotland, which behaves like a petulant adolescent, isn’t let go to find its own way in the world and then grow up.
Because then Britain ceases to exist, as it would if England, Wales or, arguably, Northern Ireland, were to leave the Union. Would it matter? Not sure.
I think the answer is because the England-Scotland partnership worked marvelously well for both countries for a very long time. Unionists are naturally reluctant to divorce over what are hopefully temporary squabbles.
Critical Race Theory. Also in Wales.
They have been students and studied something which says that Britain has always been evil. So the only way to find comfort to assuage the collective feelings of guilt is to give money away to Africa ….. or to anybody really. Anybody at all who can be called needy. Anybody except pensioners who have been the evil ones in the first place.
In Scotland, drug capital of the universe, there are thousands of needy people just waiting to be saved. In Wales there are those who would pay anything to ‘save’ the language. In Scotland they are creating a language so that there will be something to save. Wales and Scotland have expensive presences in Brussels waiting for ‘the time’. But the people do not want ‘the time’ to happen. So, it is a question of indoctrination of children until there are just enough people to arrive at the great moment….THE TIME.
Why is the UK government still spending billions on foreign aid?
Given the tetra-trillions of foreign aid that has been donated to foreign states (especially the vile regimes of Africa) since WW2, Surely it is time for the West to redirect this vast wealth back into its own economies and communities?
I think the SNP are closet colonialists.
I think they just want to spaff our money and stick two fingers up to the tax payer.
“Scotland has been a nation in its own right since 1707…” So what then was the independent Kingdom of Scotland which ceased to exist in that very year (as did the Kingdom of England)? Perhaps there’s a “not” missing before the word “been”? If not, then the entire sentence does not compute!
It’s not as clear cut as you would like to think. English law and Scottish law are different, you don’t find much presence of the Church of England in Scotland and Scotland used to have its own banks.
It still has its own bank notes, which as you may know are not always readily accepted in England.
Scotland has its own Parliament again, whereas England does not.
The Scottish educational system, exam system (Standard and Higher grades) and universities (mostly 4 year first degrees) are quite different.
The two countries share an army, navy and air force, though there are distinctively Scottish regiments.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has no remit in Scotland, just as Matt Hancock’s pontifications on national tv during the Covid pandemic carried no weight in Scotland, and a lot of what Rachel Reeves spouted in her Budget speech this month does not apply in Scotland.
I could go on. Try asking for a pint of mild or bitter in a Scottish pub….
Scotland is not a nation in its own right, it is part of the UK.
So why does Scotland have national soccer and rugby teams which compete in international tournaments ? It is a nation and it is part of the UK.
Having a football team does not a nation state make.
A perennial argument between citizens and virtue signalling politicians.
‘Why is the SNP spending millions on foreign aid?’
The SNP is not spending millions on foreign aid.
It is giving away other people’s money.
A small man often dresses flamboyantly
Livingstone discovered the lake, but the principal link between Scotland and Malawi was Robert Laws. I wonder if the SNP is familiar with the history? First cousin, twice removed.
“Why is the SNP spending millions on foreign aid?” Because it’s a government and therefore spending other peoples’ money.